A perfon
having declared
the
freedom of a
flave cannot
afterwards
Cue the matter
for any offence
committed
by
-fuch flave.
•A Freedman’s
allegation of
• his having
committed an
acknowledged,
murder
f t 'w b ilft be
“ w a s a
s i J l a * v e exempts
him
from refpon-
iibility for it.
I f a perfon make a declaration concerning another, that “ he has
“ emancipated his flave,” and the flave Ihould afterwards, by mifad-
venture, kill a relation of that perfon, (as his fon, for inftance,) he
is not entitled to any thing on that ■ account; becaufe, in having declared
the emancipation, he throws the liability to the line upon the
flave’s Aktlas, and difcharges the mailer from i t : and his mere affirmation
is not credited nor received as proof againfl; the Akilas, unlefs
■ it be fupported by evidence:— but i f he produce evidence, the Akilas
■ are liable for the line.
I f a mailer emancipate his flave, and the flave afterwards make an
acknowledgment to a man, faying, “ I murdered your brother, by
“ mifadventure, whillt I was yet a flave,”— and the man aflert that
he had committed the murder after having obtained hisTreedom, in this
cafe the allegation of the Jlave is credited, as he is a negator of refpoii-
fibility, becaufe he refers the murder to a time and lituation repugnant
to refponlibility, and which is notorious :— notorious, as this fuppofes
a cafe in which his bondage was a matter of notoriety ; and repugnant
to refponlibility, becaufe, during his bondage, It would have been
incumbent on his mailer Ather to make him over in atonement for the
offence, or to releafe him by paying a redemption.— T h e cafe is therefore
the fame as where a perfon, being an adult, fays- “ I divorced my
“ wife (or, fold my houfe, &c.) whillt I was yet an infant,”—or,
being of found mind, fays “ I divorced, &c.” whillt I was infane,
(his infanity having been notorious ; )—for under fuch circumltances
his affertion is to be credited, fo far as to eftablifh the inefficacy of the
divorce, or the invalidity of the fale ;— and fo likewife, in the prefent
inftance, the affertion of the Have is credited, fo far as to eftablifh his
exemption from refponfibility.
Cafes in I f a perfon emancipate his female flave, and afterwards aflert
aer'ifrtfpon- that “ he had llruck off her hand whillt fhe was yet a flave and
j fhe,
ffie, on the contrary, affirm that “ he did fo after Ihe was free,”
her allégation mull be credited. T h e fame rule alfo holds'with re-
fpe£t to every thing taken from a female Have by her mailer,— excepting
only her earnings*, and the enjoyment of her perfon,— for
if Her mailer were to fay, “ I look your earnings,” or “ I enjoyed
“ you— whiljl you’Were my Jlave f and the to reply, “ nay l-1—you
“ did fo after I was free,”— Hill his allegation would be" credited
in either cafe, upon a favourable conltruâion.— This is according to
the two Elders. Mohammed'alleges -that the affertion o f the female
{lave is to be credited only with* refpedl tt> füch things, aftually exigent,
as a mafler would be required to return or account for to her;
according to all authorities ;■ (in other words,- that where the mailer
acknowledges having taken any thing then extant in his hands, he is'
directed to return or account for the fame, and that only;) and that;
with refpefl to any other matter, the affertion of the mailer mull be :
credited. The argument of the two Elders is,, that: the mailer has.
made acknowledgment- of a• fadl which occalions refponfibility;
(namely, the cutting off o f a hand, or the taking of. property,) as ;
having referred his adkto a time which was not repugnant , to refponfibility
; (fora mailer cutting off the hand o f his Have, or taking his
property, is invariably refponlible,. in. theTam® manner as a mailer
j who cuts off the hand of his pawned flave, or who takes property from
his Have involved in debt ;) and after having made fuch acknowled°-T
ment, he pleads another circumllance to.exempt, him from refponfî-,
bility;— whence his affertion is not to be credited unlefs fupported by
evidence;— in the lame manner as where, a man, wanting his right
eye, and having llruck out the right eye o f another, alleges that
“ the other had llruck out. his. right eye in retaliation,” and the other
denies this,, afferting that “ he had llruck out his eye at a time.when.
“ he was already deprived o f his own eye, and therefore owes .him a ,
* T h e example refers to a. fem ale Have, becaufe o f the allufion to c a n a l connexion.__
ferules o f it, however, equally apply to male Jlaves in.all other particulars.
Able to his
emancipated
flave.
fi mu lft.